The answer stems from Machiavelli’s aim sicuro contrast the best case contesto of per monarchic consuetudine with the institutions and organization of verso republic

Why would Machiavelli effusively praise (let chiazza even analyze) per hereditary monarchy mediante per sistema supposedly designed puro promote the superiority of republics? Even the most excellent monarchy, mediante Machiavelli’s view, lacks insecable salient qualities that are endemic onesto properly constituted republican government and that make the latter constitution more desirable than the former.

“The kingdom of France is moderated more by laws than any other kingdom of which at our time we have knowledge”, Machiavelli declares (Discourses CW 314, translation revised). “The kingdom of France”, he states,

lives under laws and orders more than any other kingdom. milfaholic collegamento These laws and orders are maintained by Parlements, notably that of Paris: by it they are renewed any time it acts against a prince of the kingdom or sopra its sentences condemns the king. And up to now it has maintained itself by having been a persistent executor against that nobility. (Discourses CW 422, translation revised)

These passages of the Discourses seem puro suggest that Machiavelli has great admiration for the institutional arrangements that obtain per France. Specifically, the French king and the nobles, whose power is such that they would be able preciso oppress the populace, are checked by the laws of the realm which are enforced by the independent authority of the Parlement. Thus, opportunities for unbridled tyrannical conduct are largely eliminated, rendering the monarchy temperate and “civil”.

Yet such per regime, giammai matter how well ordered and law-abiding, remains incompatible with esserci libero. Discussing the ability of a monarch puro meet the people’s wish for liberty, Machiavelli comments that

as far as the … popular desire of recovering their liberty, the prince, not being able onesto satisfy them, must examine what the reasons are that make them desire being free. (Discourses CW 237).

The explanation for this situation Machiavelli refers to the function of the Parlement

He concludes that a few individuals want freedom simply per order to command others; these, he believes, are of sufficiently small number that they can either be eradicated or bought off with honors. By contrast, the vast majority of people confuse liberty with security, imagining that the former is identical onesto the latter: “But all the others, who are infinite, desire liberty durante order puro live securely (vivere certo)” (Discourses CW 237. Although the king cannot give such liberty preciso the masses, he can provide the security that they crave:

As for the rest, for whom it is enough preciso live securely (esserci consapevole), they are easily satisfied by making orders and laws that, along with the power of the king, comprehend everyone’s security. And once verso prince does this, and the people see that he never breaks such laws, they will shortly begin preciso live securely (vivere sicuro) and contentedly (Discourses CW 237).

the people live securely (vivere consapevole) for mai other reason than that its kings are bound preciso infinite laws con which the security of all their people is comprehended. (Discourses CW 237)

The law-abiding character of the French velocita ensures security, but that security, while desirable, ought never onesto be confused with liberty. This is the limit of monarchic rule: even the best kingdom can do no better than preciso guarantee preciso its people tranquil and orderly government.

Machiavelli holds that one of the consequences of such essere sicuro is the disarmament of the people. He comments that regardless of “how great his kingdom is”, the king of France “lives as per tributary” sicuro foreign mercenaries.